The truth is that public opinion is often so fragmented within many districts that it is impossible for congressional representatives to please a certain majority, which leads to representatives from “marginal districts” voting based on their ideology.

In fact, when considering most representative’s voting record, the votes tend to align to either the liberal or conservative spectrum, consistently. This means that on a majority of issues, even representatives from districts where re-election is not certain will vote based on their political alignment, not on the basis of their re-election.

In fact, re-election occurs moreso as a result of the beneifts provided to representatives than the length of their terms. There is no denying that, at the present time, rates of incumbency are indeed quite high; however, the institution of congressional term limits would likely only affect the statistics of the matter. Incumbents would still be offered overwhelming benefits through heightened media exposure, the franking privelege and constituency services and would thus still likely retain office in most situations, pending possibility as per the law.

Thus, even though incumbents would only be allowed to serve a specified number of terms, they would still likely serve the maximum due to their inherent campaigning benefits. Even so, their eventual replacements would also vote attitudinally and not representationally, in accordance with the trends of an increasingly idealogical Congress.

Also, an increased frequency of freshman representatives would ensure the higher probability of a divided government, facilitating gridlock and still preventing the passing of any profound legislation.